Least favorite college helmets

[NFBuck]

I'm not a fan of Louisville's either...

That bird looks more constipated than angry...

 

[buckeyesin07]

Thump and BO7: Wisconsin 665 484 53 .574, Illinois 592 - 559 - .513, Iowa = 615 - 543 - 39 .530, Indiana = 461 - 655 - 46 .416, Minnesota = 671 - 498 - 44 .571, Purdue 596 - 535 -44 .571, Northwestern 409 - 652 -45 .440, Michigan State 670 - 444 - 44 .597, Michigan 915 - 330 - 38 .727, Ohio State 861 - 319 - 54 .719

Now I have no idea what you see, but here's what I see; two programs, Ohio State and Michigan, stand way above the other eight who mostly hover around .550. There's no way to not notice the historical connection. There is no other team in the mix that provides a meaningful rivalry.

Further, its not like the down cycle Michigan is experiencing now is without precedent in the history of the two schools - i only use Wilce and Hayes, but there have been other ups and downs in OSU's fortunes under Schmidt, Willaman, Carrol, Bruce, Cooper and Tressel. In fact as someone who suffered as a student during the 63 - 67 "drought," it's a wonder Hayes survived to have those glory years in the late sixties and early seventies. I remember the airplanes circling Ohio Stadium pulling signs that read "Good - bye Woody" and when Carmen Ohio was modified to, "Oh Come let's sing Ohio's praise, and say good-bye to Woody Hayes." So delight in Michigan's dark decade. I certainly am. But I'm betting on history and the notion that the Weasles will be back.

1922 John W. Wilce 3 4 0 0.42857
1923 John W. Wilce 3 4 1 0.43750
1924 John W. Wilce 2 3 3 0.43750
1925 John W. Wilce 4 3 1 0.56250
1951 Woody Hayes 4 3 2 0.55556
1952 Woody Hayes 6 3 0 0.66667
1953 Woody Hayes 6 3 0 0.66667
1962 Woody Hayes 6 3 0 0.66667
1963 Woody Hayes 5 3 1 0.61111
1964 Woody Hayes 7 2 0 0.77778
1965 Woody Hayes 7 2 0 0.77778
1966 Woody Hayes 4 5 0 0.44444
1967 Woody Hayes 6 3 0 0.66667

You, much like the fabled Michigan Man, are living in the past. Your original post was that Michigan had continuity of on-field success. Remove the last 50 or so years from those stats, and you'll see you're wrong. It isn't 1880-1930 anymore. Michigan's all-time stats are inflated by what it did in the first 50 years, a fact that has been discussed extensively on this site. I suggest you look into it.

 

[zwem]

You, much like the fabled Michigan Man, are living in the past. Your original post was that Michigan had continuity of on-field success. Remove the last 50 or so years from those stats, and you'll see you're wrong. It isn't 1880-1930 anymore. Michigan's all-time stats are inflated by what it did in the first 50 years, a fact that has been discussed extensively on this site. I suggest you look into it.

I just laugh at all this 1900s crap. Michigan has the 2nd highest winning % from 1970-1999 behind only to Nebraska. They also won/shared 17 conference titles in that time frame. This covers 3 decades not in the 1900s. Off the top of my head, I believe Michigan is 5th in winning % from 1956-2005 which covers a 50 year period. (Neb is 1st with OSU in 2nd)

Michigan suffered from the early 50s until 1969. They only had 2 or 3 good seasons in that era. The past decade has been really rough and one of the worst in Michigan history. Besides that, Michigan has been consistent. Michigan has the resources to be good again. All it takes is the right coach, staff, and support groups. It might be 50 years down the road, but we will figure it out eventually .

 

[Jaxbuck]

I just laugh at all this 1900s crap. Michigan has the 2nd highest winning % from 1970-1999 behind only to Nebraska. They also won/shared 17 conference titles in that time frame. This covers 3 decades not in the 1900s. Off the top of my head, I believe Michigan is 5th in winning % from 1956-2005 which covers a 50 year period. (Neb is 1st with OSU in 2nd)

Michigan suffered from the early 50s until 1969. They only had 2 or 3 good seasons in that era. The past decade has been really rough and one of the worst in Michigan history. Besides that, Michigan has been consistent. Michigan has the resources to be good again. All it takes is the right coach, staff, and support groups. It might be 50 years down the road, but we will figure it out eventually .

You fuckheads claim 11 national titles and have only managed to win 1/2 of one since gaddamned WWII ended. Thus the 1900's talk.

As always, you may not like to hear it but your baseless arrogance leads to the flack you take.

 

[kujirakira]

I just laugh at all this 1900s crap. Michigan has the 2nd highest winning % from 1970-1999 behind only to Nebraska. They also won/shared 17 conference titles in that time frame. This covers 3 decades not in the 1900s. Off the top of my head, I believe Michigan is 5th in winning % from 1956-2005 which covers a 50 year period. (Neb is 1st with OSU in 2nd)

Michigan suffered from the early 50s until 1969. They only had 2 or 3 good seasons in that era. The past decade has been really rough and one of the worst in Michigan history. Besides that, Michigan has been consistent. Michigan has the resources to be good again. All it takes is the right coach, staff, and support groups. It might be 50 years down the road, but we will figure it out eventually .

You left off the biggest issue, no recruiting base.

 

[zwem]

You fuckheads claim 11 national titles and have only managed to win 1/2 of one since gaddamned WWII ended. Thus the 1900's talk.

As always, you may not like to hear it but your baseless arrogance leads to the flack you take.

Every fan base has arrogant fans. You can talk about the Michigan fan base all you want. Fuck Michigan, Ann Arbor is a whore, the fan base is arrogant pricks, etc. That doesn't bother me a bit.

My baseless arrogance. When have I ever been arrogant?

Another thing. Winning a national title is hard. You guys only have 1 in the last 44-45 years. Does that mean your program has been failure? I don't think so. You guys have won a lot of games the last 4 decades and have been very successful. Winning "only" 1 in the last 4+ decades doesn't diminish that.

 

[zwem]

You left off the biggest issue, no recruiting base.

Michigan will find players. Even the Hokey Pokey brought in highly ranked classes in 2012 and 2013. It hasn't panned out probably due to coaching. A solid coach and winning cures that.

 

[Jaxbuck]

Every fan base has arrogant fans. You can talk about the Michigan fan base all you want. Fuck Michigan, Ann Arbor is a whore, the fan base is arrogant pricks, etc. That doesn't bother me a bit.

My baseless arrogance. When have I ever been arrogant?

Another thing. Winning a national title is hard. You guys only have 1 in the last 44-45 years. Does that mean your program has been failure? I don't think so. You guys have won a lot of games the last 4 decades and have been very successful. Winning "only" 1 in the last 4+ decades doesn't diminish that.

The collective "your" baseless arrogance.

scUM fans on Buckeye sites get painted with broad brushes. Comes with the territory.

Difficulty of a NC is a straw man. You were whining about the "1900's crap", I was sharing a major reason why people hammer on it.

FWIW 1954, 1957, 1968, 2002 all since WWII. 4 > 1/2

 

[cincibuck]

You, much like the fabled Michigan Man, are living in the past. Your original post was that Michigan had continuity of on-field success. Remove the last 50 or so years from those stats, and you'll see you're wrong. It isn't 1880-1930 anymore. Michigan's all-time stats are inflated by what it did in the first 50 years, a fact that has been discussed extensively on this site. I suggest you look into it.

Well, if you want to follow historic patterns you need to "live in the past" a bit. "Michigan's all time stats are inflated -" just as are the buckeyes, in fact most of the top 20 teams owe much to the fact that they only play two or three games each season with a team with a comparable winning record and I'm not even getting into the games played against Oberlin or Southeast Northern Mississippi, something else all the top 20 deal into to varying degrees. I'm more than happy to celebrate the past 14 years during which Michigan went 2 - 12 against the Bucks, but remember that between 1980 and 1999 the Bucks went 6 - 13 - 1. During this current 14 year span Michigan has still played .579 average, better than the overall average for the other Big Ten teams not named Ohio State.

So if the past says Michigan has been good, if the current says Michigan has been mediocre, what's the bet on the future? Given a 100K+ Stadium, given the biggest endowment fund of any Big Ten public school, given an active alumni base, given facilities that match anything in the Big Ten, given the history of the program, my guess is that Michigan will, in the next four or five years, right its course and be back to relevant. Now if you're tea leaves tell you something else, by all means have at it.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

Well, if you want to follow historic patters you need to "live in the past" a bit. "Michigan's all time stats are inflated -" just as are the buckeyes

Not really. Michigan has the most all-time wins despite sucking for the most part over the last decade, whereas we've moved up compared to others over the same timeframe. In fact, we've had exactly three losing seasons since 1960 (45 seasons), whereas Michigan has three in the last seven seasons. I don't think there's another program in the country that has been historically consistent as us,

 

[Jaxbuck]

my tea leaves say the stadium capacity means nothing.

If they fall short of a home run coaching hire they are going to continue to be mediocre to awful

They could hire Vince Lombardi's ghost and they are still proper fucked at QB for the next 2 years minimum.

 

[lvbuckeye]

Southeast Northern Mississippi

Alabama plays them the week before Auburn every year.

 

[kujirakira]

Michigan will find players. Even the Hokey Pokey brought in highly ranked classes in 2012 and 2013. It hasn't panned out probably due to coaching. A solid coach and winning cures that.

According to the recruiting rankings? I suppose... but then again that's circular logic since recruiting rankings are largely built on offers, not actual scouting.
And it looks like none of those allegedly blue chip recruits panned out... is that all development? I have a feeling a lot of those kids would've been busts no matter where they went. ie: 5star Wristband Bandit.

Michigan doesn't have national pull anymore. While being higher in the pecking order than most of the Conference, you're currently relegated to the leftovers in the State of Ohio after tOSU and ND. Maybe even Michigan State and Kentucky. You've even lost some hold over your own in-state factory, Cass Tech.
This isn't just a problem facing Michigan, it's a problem facing all 8 of the 19th century members of the conference (not counting Chicago). If any of you wants to stop your slip into irrelevancy, you'll have to reinvest in HS sports or just pray that they figure it out on their own.

 

[buckeyesin07]

Well, if you want to follow historic patterns you need to "live in the past" a bit. "Michigan's all time stats are inflated -" just as are the buckeyes, in fact most of the top 20 teams owe much to the fact that they only play two or three games each season with a team with a comparable winning record and I'm not even getting into the games played against Oberlin or Southeast Northern Mississippi, something else all the top 20 deal into to varying degrees. I'm more than happy to celebrate the past 14 years during which Michigan went 2 - 12 against the Bucks, but remember that between 1980 and 1999 the Bucks went 6 - 13 - 1. During this current 14 year span Michigan has still played .579 average, better than the overall average for the other Big Ten teams not named Ohio State.

So if the past says Michigan has been good, if the current says Michigan has been mediocre, what's the bet on the future? Given a 100K+ Stadium, given the biggest endowment fund of any Big Ten public school, given an active alumni base, given facilities that match anything in the Big Ten, given the history of the program, my guess is that Michigan will, in the next four or five years, right its course and be back to relevant. Now if you're tea leaves tell you something else, by all means have at it.

A wall of text in which you're backtracking from your original claim--continuity of winning on the field. I suggest you look up the definition of "continuity" (a word you chose), because Michigan doesn't have it with respect to winning on the field.

 

[cincibuck]

my tea leaves say the stadium capacity means nothing.

And mine asks, then why did Ohio State drop so much to increase capacity? Do you think it's just a statistical oddity that the four most successful programs in the Big Ten have stadiums at, or above, the 90,000 mark? Do you not agree that 106,000 X $50 is > 67,000 X 50? Even when the TV pot is split evenly, those with bigger stadiums end up with more money to spend on recruiting, coaches, facilities.

If they fall short of a home run coaching hire they are going to continue to be mediocre to awful.

Even with two bad coaching choices they managed to remain above .550. It will be rougher on them because they are in a far better division of the conference and can anticipate losses to Ohio state, Michigan State and Penn State for the next year or two.

hey could hire Vince Lombardi's ghost and they are still proper fucked at QB for the next 2 years minimum.

Ohio State started a season with Joe Bauserman at QB and still managed to become bowl eligible. And to be in the FBSCS with a third stringer calling signals is beyond comprehension were it not so. QB definitely has to be addressed and I don't think anyone knows that better then the Michigan football program. They may get lucky this fall, and like the Buckeyes, begin with a limited QB who turns into a better than average QB, or they may, as you suggest struggle for at least two more years. I still believe that history stands with Michigan. They've been a solid program in the past and they have all they need to be a solid program in the future and if they don't land a major name coach remember how you felt when Ohio state announced that Jim Tressel was the new head coach... Obviously some "big names" didn't think Columbus was the best destination for their future.

[QUOTE = "BO7"] A wall of text in which you're backtracking from your original claim--continuity of winning on the field. I suggest you look up the definition of "continuity" (a word you chose), because Michigan doesn't have it with respect to winning on the field. [/QUOTE]Sorry if researching offends your sense of fairness. As bad as things have been at Michigan - and they've been bad since 2006 - they've still managed to win more than they've lost. Beyond that what I'm saying can be broken down into two parts: 1) with respect to The Game, Michigan's 2 and 12 run is not unlike the 6 - 13 - 1 streak the Buckeyes suffered through in the 80s - 90s.
2) Just as the Buckeyes were able to turn things around because they had money, alum support, great facilities, a 90K+ stadium and history behind them, so till will Michigan ultimately turn their program around and for the exact same reasons.